INFORMATION ON LULUCF ACTIONS IN ESTONIA

Transcription

1 INFORMATION ON LULUCF ACTIONS IN ESTONIA Report under LULUCF Decision 529/2013/EU Art 10 Submission to the European Commission Tallinn 2014

2 Introduction According to the Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 and its article 10, Member States shall draw up and transmit to the Commission information on their current and future LULUCF actions to limit or reduce emissions and maintain or increase removals resulting from the activities referred to in Article 3(1), (2) and (3) of the Decision. The activities referred to in Article 3(1) are afforestation, reforestation, deforestation and forest management. Activities in Article 3(2) are cropland management and grazing land management which Member States shall prepare and maintain annual accounts for. The accounting period for cropland management and grazing land management activities begin on 1 January Prior to 1 January 2022, Member States shall provide and submit to the Commission each year initial, preliminary and non-binding annual estimates of emissions and removals from cropland management and grazing land management. According to Article 3(3) Member States may also prepare and maintain accounts that accurately reflect emissions and removals resulting from revegetation and wetland drainage and rewetting. The accounts referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision, shall cover emissions and removals of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The information on LULUCF actions has to cover the duration of the accounting period of 1 January December In the information on LULUCF actions the following information relating to the activities required in the Decision are: a) a description of past trends of emissions and removals including, where possible, historic trends, to the extent that they can reasonably be reconstructed; b) projections for emissions and removals for the accounting period; c) an analysis of the potential to limit or reduce emissions and to maintain or increase removals; d) a list of the most appropriate measures to take into account national circumstances, including, as appropriate, but not limited to the indicative measures specified in Annex IV of the Decision, that the Member State is planning or that are to be implemented in order to pursue the mitigation potential, where identified in accordance with the analysis referred to in point (c); e) existing and planned policies to implement the measures referred to in pint (d), including a quantitative or qualitative description of the expected effect of those measures on emissions and removals, taking into account other policies relating to the LULUCF sector; f) indicative timetables for the adoption and implementation of the measures referred to in point (d). The Report was compiled by Estonian Ministry of the Environment (Ms Merje Lesta) in cooperation with Estonian Environment Agency (Ms Kaie Kriiska and Mr Veiko Adermann). The contact person in the Ministry of the Environment is: Ms Kadi Kõiv Senior Officer of the Forest Department Tel: kadi.koiv@envir.ee 2

3 Table of Contents Introduction... 2 Executive Summary... 4 Enhanced communication... 9 Overview of national circumstances A description of past trends of emissions and removals Projections for emissions and removals for the Analysis of the potential to limit or reduce emissions and to maintain or increase removals Most appropriate measures Measures related to cropland management Measures related to grazing land management and pasture improvement Measures to improve the management of agricultural organic soils, in particular, peat lands Measures to prevent drainage and to incentivise rewetting of wetlands & measures related to existing or partly drained mires Measures related to forestry activities Measures related to preventing deforestation Strengthening protection against natural disturbances such as fire, pests, and storms Measures to substitute greenhouse gas intensive energy feedstocks and materials with harvested wood products Existing and planned policies to implement the measures Indicative timetable for the adoption and implementation of the measures References

4 Executive Summary According to the Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 and its article 10, Member States shall draw up and transmit to the Commission information on their current and future LULUCF actions to limit or reduce emissions and maintain or increase removals resulting from the activities referred to in Article 3(1), (2) and (3) of the Decision. The activities include Afforestation, Reforestation, Deforestation, Forest Management, Cropland Management, Grazing land Management and if chosen for the accounting period, also Revegetation, Wetland Drainage and Rewetting. In the information on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) actions a description of past trends of emissions and removals, projections for emissions and removals for the future, an analysis of the potential to limit or reduce emissions and increase or maintain removals, a list of the most appropriate measures that a member state is planning or that are to be implemented, description of existing and planned policies to implement the measures and indicative timetables for the adoption and implementation of the measures, are included. The information on LULUCF actions is prepared by the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) in cooperation with Estonian Environment Agency (ESTEA). MoE had communications with other ministries and departments in order to provide complete and accurate data for the submission to the European Commission. The total area of Estonia is km 2, including km 2 of land area. More than a half of the land area is forest land, one third is agricultural land, and one fifth is covered by mires and bogs (peat soils). Estonia is one of the smallest countries in Europe, both by area and by population. In the light of climate change mitigation, it is important to preserve and protect areas that have high carbon sequestration capacity: forests, wetlands, peatlands and grasslands, as well as to promote carbon sequestration through sustainable forest management, reforestation and afforestation, improvement of cropland management practices and resume with supportive activities like mowing and grazing in order to preserve the natural state of meadows and seminatural grasslands. Since half of Estonia s territory is covered with forest, of which 10% is strictly protected, forestry is of great importance for Estonian economy and environment, and therefore forest policies have the major effect on the whole development of the LULUCF sector. Private forest owners own 45% of Estonian forest land, from which 34% is owned by physical persons and 11% is owned by juridical persons. Taking into account the pattern of growth function of Estonian forests and the structure of forest resources (currently one third of forests meet the criteria of renewal cuttings, and additional 10% reaches it in the next 10 years), the renewal of our forests with decreasing annual increment (and amount of carbon sequestered) can be our only sustainable strategic approach. Most of the forests overgrown are of those owned privately by physical persons. According to Estonian Forestry Development Plan until 2020 (EFDP 2020) the state has set a goal to enhance the use of wood because the age structure of Estonian forests supports more cutting (12-15 mil m 3 per year), and because of not using forest resources would be unreasonable waste of renewables. In order to reach the goal set by EFDP 2020, land reform was finished in 2011 and income tax act was changed to motivate private forest owners to manage their forests. By 2016 it is expected that the number of private forest owners joined in private forest cooperatives has raised and the amount of wood sold through cooperatives has also increased. It is also expected that wood markets have also been recovered by By the year 2019 it is expected that more wood is used in energy sector because the objectives of bioenergy have to be reached. In addition, foreign investors confidence is also expected to be recovered. All forest land is considered managed in Estonia the whole forest land in Estonia is or has been covered with forest management plans. In addition, protected forests are covered with the protection scheme. 4

5 The area of cropland increased until the 1990s due to the propitious conditions in agricultural sector in Estonia. The biggest influences on the sector were the remarkable support provided by the early former Soviet Union, a large market and raw material basis, and a low market price for energy, which kept agriculture artificially alive. From 1991 until 2005, an overall decline characterised Estonia s agriculture. Arable lands were abandoned due to the reduced demand for local food products, which was caused by the availability of cheap import goods as the result of opened markets. As from 2005, the cropland area has been increasing again due to increased investments and subsidiaries from the European Union to Estonian s agricultural sector, expansion of export opportunities and popularization of organic farming. The spatial share of the grassland category is 7.4% of the overall Estonian area, ranking grasslands as the fourth largest land-use category after wetlands. By 2012, the area of grasslands decreased 58% compared to 1970s due to: i) abandonment of grazing lands, and ii) development of the agricultural sector and cultivation of grasslands. Wetlands cover 11% of Estonia s territory. Wetlands (including peatland and inland water bodies) decreased until the beginning of 1990s, since then the area has remained stable. A decrease in wetlands area has taken place mostly due to drainage of bogs and mires for agricultural and forestry purposes. Past trends of emissions and removals for the period are based on NIR The forest land category constitutes about 73% of all LULUCF sector emissions and removals. During , the forest land category acted as a net source of CO2 mainly due to intensive harvesting. Since 2004, forest land category acted as a net sink of CO2 again, reaching its maximum net removal of Gg CO2 eq. in After 2008, net removal of GHGs by forest land category has started to decrease because of the increasing felling rates. Net CO2 eq. emissions from Cropland Management have decreased since 1990 until 1997 after which emissions started to increase again and reached 214 Gg CO2 eq. in 2008 and 195 Gg CO2 eq. in Grazing land Management have been both a net sink and source of GHGs throughout the period of , depending mostly on the changes of living biomass on grasslands. In the beginning of the 2000s, fast biomass increase characterized grasslands, mostly caused by abandonment of old croplands. The net emissions from grazing land management was 432 Gg CO2 eq. in 2012, while in 2004 Grazing land Management acted as a net sink of GHGs reaching Gg CO2 eq. Projections for GHG emissions and removals are estimated for the period Two scenarios of projections for activities Afforestation, Reforestation, Deforestation (ARD) and Forest Management (FM) are described. WEM scenario for forest land represents prognosis with existing measures and WAM shows projections for emissions and removals by ARD and FM when additional measures have been implemented. According to Forest land WEM scenario, felling rates will remain similar as of recent years (ca 9 mil m 3 ) and therefore FM and ARD will remain contributing to GHG removals acting as a net sink during the period The net removal from activities on forest land is expected to be around Gg CO2 eq. during in case of the WEM scenario. According to WAM scenario, felling rates are expected to increase, reaching 15 mil m 3 in 2020 and starting to decrease again after a few years. From the year 2030 felling rate is expected to be 12 mil m 3 per year. Therefore, FM and ARD will result in GHG net emissions since 2016 onwards, reaching its maximum in 2021 and being almost balanced out by Cropland area is not expected to increase further compared to the year Cropland Management is expected to result in decreased net emissions of GHGs in the period of but it will not be a sink. Grasslands should continue to decline in the near future, mainly due to natural afforestation. However, Grazing land Management is expected to act as a sink from 2015 to 2035, reaching its maximum in 2016 (net removal 144 Gg CO2 eq) and decreasing slightly thereafter until LULUCF role as a sink or source of GHGs in the future will be determined by the intensity of forest fellings, usage of peat soils and practices used in Cropland Management and Grazing 5

6 land Management. The increased felling rates during the period would result in decreased forest stock. However, Forest stock is one of the most important factors of keeping LULUCF sector GHG emissions and removals balance on a sink side. The potential of maintaining felling rates on today s level or even decreasing them, would result in increasing or maintaining forest carbon stock for the period of However, Estonia needs to look further into the future and plan forestry activities according to current situation. About one third of Estonian forests have exceeded maturity age and meet the criteria of renewal cuttings being at the same time more prone to storms and diseases and their ability to sequestrate carbon is lower than that of a forests in an optimal growing stage. The development of forestry provides additional employment opportunities and fills in state s financial resources. Increased felling rates will result in decrease of forest carbon stock but in the same time the Harvested Wood Products (HWP) pool will increase as well. Although negative in respect of carbon balance, part of the wood from increased felling can be used for heat and electricity production. Using renewable energy sources like wood instead of oil shale will be extremely important for Estonia in a long run. Together with preserving biological diversity and forest habitat types, also forest carbon stock can be maintained in forest areas under protection. In the course of preparation of protection rules, it is necessary to analyse the socio-economic impacts occurring with implementation of the protection regime in order to assess alleviation measures. Due to insufficient forest planting and lack of afforestation of the non-used arable land, there are more number of grey alder woods in the Estonian forest resource which grow in the most productive habitats. It is considerably more purposeful to use these areas for growing economically and ecologically more valuable species, especially spruces and broad-leaved tree species. In order to provide efficient forest management, the development and maintenance of infrastructure (water regime and access) is also very important. In order to prevent forest fires and other dangerous damages of forests, better biological preventive control systems and monitoring of dangerous invasive alien species can be implemented. Also, the analysis of the economic loss due to dangerous damages of forests need to be conducted. GHG emissions from Cropland Management are related to emissions from mineral and organic soils, liming, carbon stock changes in living biomass and land use change to cropland. As far as emissions from organic soils are evened out by uptake by mineral soils, therefore inter-annual emission fluctuations in the cropland category are mainly caused by changes in living biomass and varying liming intensity in different years. Cropland area has increased due to the land use change from grassland to cropland which results in increased N2O emissions. To avoid increased N2O emissions from Cropland Management the conversion of grasslands to croplands can be limited by preserving larger areas of permanent grasslands. On the other hand, supporting organic farming would reduce GHG emissions mainly related to application of mineral fertilizers but at the same time due to decreased crop yield, larger land area for Cropland Management is needed. In order to limit GHG emissions from Cropland Management, crop diversification can be used. Also, it is important to analyse what are the most efficient quantities and times for application of nitrogen fertilizers. Over 22% of arable land soils in Estonia are calcium-deficient and acidified. To eliminate calciumdeficiency in field soils, quick-acting fine dusty limes are mainly applied. In addition to the named reasons, soil protection mechanisms are needed in Estonia to limit GHG emissions, soil erosion and to maintain and raise the content of soil organic matter. Further research and support is needed to advise farmers on environmentally friendly management. Also, to transfer knowledge and know-how to farmers, implementing of efficient advisory systems and services is needed. There are co-benefits in terms of limiting and reducing GHG emissions while protecting ecological focus areas, maintaining semi-natural habitats, protecting natural habitats, and wild fauna and flora that prevents land-use change. Potential to limit and reduce GHG emissions is also related to peatlands. In National Inventory Report, wetlands land use 6

7 category includes peatlands and inland water bodies. In Estonia, peat is the third most important indigenous fuel after oil shale and wood. Most GHG emissions from peatlands are related to peat extraction sites. In 2012, the total area of managed peat extractions fields was ha. Peat extraction usually proceeds on the same production area during several years. In order to reduce GHG emissions from peat extraction sites it is important to restore the land degraded by extraction to forest land, water body or some other kind of land that meets the criteria. Restoring the water regime of those abandoned peat extraction sites would allow afforestation activities and recreation of bogs. Areas degraded by drainage should be prioritised to identify the needs for and sequence of their rehabilitation and restoration. Also, further draining of natural peatlands should be avoided in order to limit GHG emissions from those areas. The most appropriate measures for Estonia that are planned or are to be implemented, taking into account national circumstances, in order to pursue the mitigation potential, are described. Measures related to cropland management are as follows: Support for growing plants of local varieties; Support for environmentally friendly management; Support for the establishment of protective forest on agricultural land; Organic farming; Support for environmentally friendly horticulture; Crop diversification measure; Ecological focus area protection. Measures related to Grazing land Management and pasture improvement are as follows: Support for the maintenance of semi-natural habitats; Natura 2000 support for agricultural land; Preservation of permanent grassland; Support for advisory systems and services. Measures to improve the management of agricultural soils, in particular, peat lands, are as follows: Regional support for soil protection. Measures to prevent drainage and to incentivise rewetting of wetlands & measures related to existing and partly drained mires are as follows: Mitigating the negative impacts of climate change on biological diversity; Ensuring the favourable conservation status of habitats. Measures related to restoration of degraded lands are as follows: Restoration of the land degraded by extraction; Restoration of contaminated sites and water bodies. Measures related to forestry activities are as follows: Promotion of regeneration of forests in managed private forests with the tree species suitable for the habitat type; Reforestation; Increasing forest increment and ability to sequestrate carbon through timely regeneration of forests for climate change mitigation; Natura 2000 support for private forest land; Development and maintenance of infrastructure for agriculture and forest management; Improvement of forest economic and ecological vitality. There are no currently existing and planned measures related to preventing deforestation in Estonia. Measures related to strengthening protection against natural disturbances such as fire, pests, and storms are as follows: Improving forest health and preventing the spreading of dangerous forest detractors; Obligations of owner in Forest Management. Measures to substitute greenhouse gas intensive energy feedstock and materials with harvested wood products are as follows: Reducing the environmental impact related to the use of fossil fuels and non-renewable resources by increasing timber production and use in Estonia; Broader use of renewable energy sources; Research and development for establishing the infrastructure needed for promoting the use of biomass and bioenergy, for innovation and the transfer of technology and know-how. There are several existing and planned policies to implement the named measures in Estonia. One of the policies is Estonian Rural Development Plan that was prepared to support the regionally balanced development of rural areas through the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) measures. Most of the measures related to LULUCF activities were transferred to Estonian Rural Development Programme The support for the establishment of protection forest on agricultural land was one of the measures that was not included in the new ERDP. The ERDP was adopted by government on 22 May Rural development policy is part of European Union Common Agricultural Policy (hereinafter the CAP) and it is financed from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 7

8 Development (the EAFRD). The objectives of the rural development policy are rural competitiveness, sustainable management of natural resources and balanced territorial development of rural areas. CAP also sets greening measures. One of the objectives of the new CAP is the enhancement of environmental performance through a mandatory greening component of direct payments which will support agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. In addition to previous, there is also EU Cohesion Fund that supports implementation of a measure related to restoration of exhausted and abandoned peatlands and drained peatlands. Another policy to implement the measures is Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 (NCDP 2020). The NCDP 2020 is a strategic base document for the development of sectors related to the conservation and use of nature until Forestry Development Plan until 2020 (FDP 2020) is one of the policies that has great effect on Estonian forestry. The FDP 2020 is based on the concept of sustainable forest management which is management of forests in a manner and to an extent that maintains their biological diversity, productivity, capacity for regeneration and vitality as well as potential to fulfil ecological, economic and social functions at the local, national and global levels without damaging other ecosystems now and in the future. In addition, Forest Act provides legal framework for the management of forests in Estonia. There is also National Renewable Energy Action Plan until 2020 (NREAP 2020) with the main aim to increase the share of renewable energy sources in the whole of energy consumption. For the mobilisation of new biomass sources in 2007 the Development Plan for Enhancing the Use of Biomass and Bioenergy for the period (DPB) was drawn up. The main objective of the DPB is to create favourable conditions for the development of domestic biomass and bioenergy production in order to reduce Estonia s dependence on imported resources and fossil fuels, decrease the pressure on the environment, use the land resources efficiently and sustainably and enhance employment in rural areas. Earth s Crust Act supports the implementation of the measures related to restoration of extraction sites. There is also Estonian Environmental Strategy 2030 that supports implementing the measures. In addition to other policies and regulations supporting LULUCF actions, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Action Plan in Agriculture sector has been drafted and approved by the Minister of Agriculture in The main goals of the plan is to limit the increase of GHG emissions from the agriculture sector, analyse the climate change assessment methodology and statistics, increase the sequestration of GHGs and hedging the risks of climate change to agriculture. There is also indicative timetable shown (Chapter 6) for the adoption and implementation of the 27 measures named in this report. 8

9 Enhanced communication Ministry of the Environment (MoE) as the ministry responsible for preparing and finalizing the Information on LULUCF actions had several communications with other ministries and departments in order to provide complete and accurate data for submission to the European Commission. Close cooperation and information exchange was established with the Ministry of Agriculture and Estonian Environment Agency. Estonian Environment Agency (ESTEA), a state authority administered by Ministry of the Environment, had main responsibility to provide historical trends and future projections of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals. The tasks of the Forest Monitoring Department of the ESTEA are to plan, organize and perform forest monitoring and applied research, National Forest Inventory (NFI), land-use and land use change and carbon cycle monitoring, and to control, process and analyse monitoring data, comply national and international reporting obligations. In addition to previous, many specialists from various departments of the MoE were incorporated to a process of compilation of the information on LULUCF actions. The involved departments were Water Department, Land and Soil Department, Climate and Radiation Department, Forest Department and Nature Conservation Department. Coordination of the work to compile the report was done by Forest Department of the MoE. 9

10 Overview of national circumstances The Republic of Estonia is located between the 57th and 60th latitudes and the 22nd and 28th longitudes. Estonia shares a common sea and land border with the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation (the latter is also the border of the EU) and a sea border with the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden. Estonia stretches 240 km from north to south and 350 km from east to west. The total area of Estonia is km 2, including km 2 of land area. More than a half of the land area is forest land, one third is agricultural land, and one fifth is covered by mires and bogs (peat soils). Estonia is one of the smallest countries in Europe, both by area and by population. In the light of climate change mitigation, it is important to preserve and protect areas that have high carbon sequestration capacity: forests, wetlands, peatlands and grasslands, as well as to promote carbon sequestration through sustainable forest management, reforestation and afforestation, improvement of cropland management practices and resume with supportive activities like mowing and grazing in order to preserve the natural state of meadows and seminatural grasslands. According to the National Inventory Report (NIR)1 1, the proportion of forests to the total country area has increased from 43.8% in 1970 to 50.2% in 2012 (an increase of 289 thousand hectares). The increase has taken place mostly due to the abandonment of grasslands and the overgrowth of wetlands. The area of grasslands and wetlands decreased 463 and 69 thousand hectares, respectively, during the same period. The area of agricultural land cropland increased until the 1990s and started to decline after that due to the economical processes taking place in the Estonian agricultural sector. Cropland area has been on a rising trend again since the last decade due to the increasing subsidies from the government and the European Union. The area of settlements has been increasing continuously, about 32% during the period of last forty years. The area of different land use classes in 2012, according to National Forest Inventory (NFI) are as follows (1000 ha): Forest land Cropland Grassland Unmanaged Wetlands Peatlands (Wetlands) Settlements Other Land 51.6 Since half of Estonia s territory is covered with forest, of which 10% is strictly protected, forestry is of great importance for Estonian economy and environment, and therefore forest policies have the major effect on the whole development of the LULUCF sector. Since 1970, forest area has been increasing in Estonia, mostly due to abandonment of grasslands and the overgrowth of wetlands. Private forest owners own 45% of Estonian forest land, from which 34% is owned by physical persons and 11% is owned by juridical persons 2. 37% of the forest area is managed by the State Forest Management Centre. After independence was regained in Estonia in 1991, the ownership reform program was started. Part of it was land reform. Land, which had been unlawfully expropriated, was to be returned to its initial owners or to their descendants. Borders of the state forests were restored accordingly to the year 1940, and the Yearbook Forest

11 remaining land was left for privatisation. According to National Forest Inventory 2012 (NFI) data, forest land subject to privatization formed ha (12%) of forest land in Taking into account the pattern of growth function of Estonian forests and the structure of forest resources (currently one third of forests meet the criteria of renewal cuttings, and additional 10% reaches it in the next 10 years), the renewal of our forests with decreasing annual increment (and amount of carbon sequestered) can be our only sustainable strategic approach. Most of the forests overgrown are of those owned privately by physical persons. Interest of forest owners to actively manage forests is often hindered by the lack of knowledge and skills, excessive taxing, insufficient market demand for some of the tree assortments, high cost of forest management and lack of interest in the counselling and economic services offered on the market, complicated paperwork and instability of the acquis. According to Estonian Forestry Development Plan until 2020 (EFDP 2020) the state has set a goal to enhance the use of wood because the age structure of Estonian forests supports more cutting (12-15 mil m 3 per year), and because of not using forest resources would be unreasonable waste of renewables. In order to reach the goal set by EFDP 2020, land reform was finished in 2011 and income tax act was changed to motivate private forest owners to manage their forests. By 2016 it is expected that the number of private forest owners joined in private forest cooperatives has raised and the amount of wood sold through cooperatives has also increased. It is also expected that wood markets have also been recovered by By the year 2019 it is expected that more wood is used in energy sector because the objectives of bioenergy have to be reached. In addition, foreign investors confidence is also expected to be recovered. There are several measures in EFDP 2020 planned for implementation during the period up to 2020 which are expected to support reaching its goals. According to NIR , forest land category constituted about 73% of all LULUCF sector emissions and removals. The net removal from forest land was Gg CO2 eq. in During , the forest land category acted as a net source of CO2 mainly due to intensive harvesting. Estimations include emissions and removals from living biomass, dead organic matter, mineral and organic soils and biomass burning. If the goals of EFDP 2020 will be reached, forest land category will most likely act as a net source of CO2 in the second half of the period All forest land is considered managed in Estonia the whole forest land in Estonia is or has been covered with forest management plans. In addition, protected forests are covered with the protection scheme. According to National Inventory Report , the cropland category includes emissions from mineral and organic soils, liming, carbon stock changes in living biomass (orchards) and N2O emissions related to land conversion to cropland. Emissions from organic soils are evened out by uptake by mineral soils, therefore inter-annual emission fluctuations in the cropland category are mainly caused by changes in living biomass and varying liming intensity in different years. The area of cropland increased until the 1990s due to the propitious conditions in agricultural sector in Estonia. The biggest influences on the sector were the remarkable support provided by the early former Soviet Union, a large market and raw material basis, and a low market price for energy, which kept agriculture artificially alive. After Estonia regained its independence in 1991, these beneficial conditions were abolished. From 1991 until 2005, an overall decline characterised Estonia s agriculture. Arable lands were abandoned due to the reduced demand for local food products, which was caused by the availability of cheap import goods as the result of opened markets. As from 2005, the cropland area has been increasing again due to increased investments and subsidiaries from 3 National Inventory Report

12 the European Union to Estonian s agricultural sector, expansion of export opportunities and popularization of organic farming. Net CO2 emissions from cropland were 195 Gg and 176 Gg, respectively in 2012 and According to National Inventory Report , the spatial share of the grassland category is 7.4% of the overall Estonian area, ranking grasslands as the fourth largest land-use category after wetlands. By 2012, the area of grasslands decreased 58% compared to 1970s due to: i) abandonment of grazing lands, and ii) development of the agricultural sector and cultivation of grasslands. The grassland category includes GHG emissions and removals from living biomass, mineral and organic soils, dead wood and loss of litter due to forest conversion to grasslands. Grasslands have been both a net sink and source of GHG-s throughout the accounting period, depending mostly on the changes of living biomass. In the beginning of the 2000s, fast biomass increase characterized grasslands, mostly caused by abandonment of old croplands. Due to natural succession, when the tree crown cover of grasslands exceeds 30%, the land is reallocated to the forest land category, which is the reason behind the decrease in grassland carbon uptake by biomass. According to National Inventory Report , the area of wetlands cover 11% of Estonia s territory. Wetlands (including peatland and inland water bodies) decreased until the beginning of 1990s, since then the area has remained stable. A decrease in wetlands area has taken place mostly due to drainage of bogs and mires for agricultural and forestry purposes. Carbon fluxes related to Wetlands land category have been estimated for peat extraction sites and land conversion to wetlands/peatlands. In Estonia, peat is the third most-important indigenous fuel after oil shale and wood. In 2012, the total area of managed peat extractions fields was ha. Peat extraction usually proceeds on the same production area during several years. After extraction the area is restored. 12

13 1. A description of past trends of emissions and removals LULUCF sector includes emissions and removals of GHGs from forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and other land. There are a number of factors that have affected the use of land during the last 20 years. The most important of these is the land reform, but also accession to the European Union, economic rises and falls. Past trends of emissions and removals for the period are based on NIR and they are shown in Figure 1. Emissions have been estimated according to the LULUCF GPG-2003 and the IPCC 2006 guidelines. Cropland Management is identified as cropland category and Grazing land Management as grassland category in the Convention. Forest land includes Forest Management as well as Afforestation/Reforestation and Deforestation activities. The forest land category constitutes about 73% of all LULUCF sector emissions and removals. During , the forest land category acted as a net source of CO2 mainly due to intensive harvesting (Figure 1). Since 2004, forest land category acted as a net sink of CO2 again, reaching its maximum net removal of Gg CO2 eq. in After 2008, net removal of GHGs by forest land category has started to decrease because of the increasing felling rates. The net removal from forest land was Gg CO2 eq. in Area of cropland has increased since 2004 until Net CO2 eq. emissions from Cropland Management have decreased since 1990 until 1997 after which emissions started to increase again and reached 214 Gg CO2 eq. in 2008 and 195 Gg CO2 eq. in The spatial share of the grassland category is 7.4% of the overall Estonian area, ranking grasslands as the fourth largest land-use category after wetlands. Grazing land Management have been both a net sink and source of GHGs throughout the period of , depending mostly on the changes of living biomass on grasslands. In the beginning of the 2000s, fast biomass increase characterized grasslands, mostly caused by abandonment of old croplands. Due to natural succession, when the tree crown cover of grasslands exceeds 30%, the land is reallocated to the forest land category, which is the reason behind the decrease in grassland (Grazing land Management) carbon uptake by biomass. The net emissions from Grazing land Management was 432 Gg CO2 eq. in 2012, while in 2004 Grazing land Management acted as a net sink of GHGs reaching Gg CO2 eq. 2. Projections for emissions and removals for the Current paragraph provides projections for GHG emissions and removals for the period Taking into account best available data, the future projections of emissions and removals for Cropland Management and Grazing land Management are provided. In addition, two scenarios of projections for activities Afforestation, Reforestation, Deforestation (ARD) and Forest Management (FM) are shown (Figure 1). WEM scenario for forest land represents prognosis with existing measures and WAM shows projections for emissions and removals by ARD and FM when additional measures have been implemented. 4 National Inventory Report

14 trends projections Gg CO 2 eq Cropland management Forest land "WEM" Grazing land management Forest land "WAM" Figure 1. LULUCF past trends and future projections of GHG emissions and removals from 1990 until the Future emissions and removals projections have been compiled using data from NIR , Forest Management Reference Level submission 5, Estonian Forestry Development Plan until 2020, and Report pursuant to Article 3(2) of Decision 280/2004/EC. Also, G4M model results have been used to calculate future emissions and removals for WAM scenario. According to Forest land WEM scenario, felling rates will remain similar as of recent years (ca 9 mil m 3 ) and therefore FM and ARD will remain contributing to GHG removals acting as a net sink during the period The net removal from activities on forest land is expected to be around Gg CO2 eq. during in case of the WEM scenario. According to WAM scenario, felling rates are expected to increase, reaching 15 mil m 3 in 2020 and starting to decrease again after a few years. From the year 2030 felling rate is expected to be 12 mil m 3 per year. Therefore, FM and ARD will result in GHG net emissions since 2016 onwards, reaching its maximum in 2021 and being almost balanced out by Cropland area is not expected to increase further compared to the year Cropland Management is expected to result in decreased net emissions of GHGs in the period of but it will not be a sink. Grasslands should continue to decline in the near future, mainly due to natural afforestation. However, Grazing land Management is expected to act as a sink from 2015 to 2035, reaching its maximum in 2016 (net removal 144 Gg CO2 eq) and decreasing slightly thereafter until Report of the technical assessment of the forest management reference level submission of Estonia submitted in

15 3. Analysis of the potential to limit or reduce emissions and to maintain or increase removals LULUCF role as a sink or source of GHGs in the future will be determined by the intensity of forest fellings, usage of peat soils and practices used in Cropland Management and Grazing land Management. The increased felling rates during the period would result in decreased forest stock. However, Forest stock is one of the most important factors of keeping LULUCF sector GHG emissions and removals balance on a sink side. The potential of maintaining felling rates on today s level or even decreasing them would result in increasing or maintaining forest carbon stock for the period of However, Estonia needs to look further into the future and plan forestry activities according to current situation. Taking into account the pattern of growth function of Estonian forests and the structure of forest resources, the renewal of our forests is extremely important. About one third of Estonian forests are old (meet the criteria of renewal cuttings) and additional 10% reaches the same state in the next 10 years. Old forests are more prone to storms and diseases and their ability to sequestrate carbon is much lower than that of forests in an optimal growing stage. In addition, overgrown forests start to lose their economic value in the course of time. As forest management and timber industry is one of the most important economic sectors in Estonia, there is a great demand for the renewal of forests that have reached the criteria of cuttings. The development of forestry provides additional employment opportunities and fills in state s financial resources. Increased felling rates will result in decrease of forest carbon stock but in the same time the Harvested Wood Products (HWP) pool will increase as well. Although negative in respect of carbon balance, part of the wood from increased felling can be used for heat and electricity production. Using renewable energy sources like wood instead of oil shale will be extremely important for Estonia in a long run. In order to preserve biological and landscape diversity in forest lands, areas of forests under protection are determined. Protection sites are divided into different zones with different restrictions. In limited management zones, sustainable economic activities are allowed, but regeneration cutting is forbidden. In addition to preserving biological diversity, also forest carbon stock can be maintained in forest areas under protection. Forest management in the restriction zones of protected areas should fulfil the task of protection of natural values. We still lack a clearly established practice on the use of forest growing measures in the restricted zones of protected areas and species protection sites, wherefore more attention should be given to specification on the protection objectives and zoning, as well as diversifying of protection measures. Considering the large surface area of limited management zones, developing such practice would be purposeful. In the course of preparation of protection rules, it is necessary to analyse the socio-economic impacts occurring with implementation of the protection regime in order to assess alleviation measures. There are number of set aside arable lands in Estonia. Due to insufficient forest planting and lack of afforestation of the non-used arable land, there are more than 177,000 ha of grey alder woods in the Estonian forest resource. 69% of the forest stands with dominating grey alder grow in primeval forests and groves with the most productive habitats (sorrel, hepatica, goutweed and fern). It is considerably more purposeful to use these areas for growing economically and ecologically more valuable species, especially spruces and broad-leaved tree species. In order to provide efficient forest management, the development and maintenance of infrastructure is also very important. Appropriate infrastructure for favourable water regime 15

16 and better access to forests helps to balance production conditions of private forest management in various rural areas. In order to prevent forest fires and other dangerous damages of forests, better biological preventive control systems and monitoring of dangerous invasive alien species can be implemented. Also, the analysis of the economic loss due to dangerous damages of forests need to be conducted. Further research, analysis and development is needed to better assess opportunities to limit or reduce GHG emissions and increase carbon sequestration in forests while not affecting forest management and substantial revenue from it. The cost of realizing the potential from forestry sector has not been analysed in Estonia. The potential to limit or reduce emissions and to maintain or increase removals of GHGs related to agricultural practices in Cropland Management and Grazing land Management can be identified regardless of the lack of GHG removal efficiency analysis based on local conditions. GHG emissions from Cropland Management are related to emissions from mineral and organic soils, liming, carbon stock changes in living biomass and land use change to cropland. As far as emissions from organic soils are evened out by uptake by mineral soils, therefore inter-annual emission fluctuations in the cropland category are mainly caused by changes in living biomass and varying liming intensity in different years. Since 2005, the area of cropland has been increasing due to increased investments and subsidiaries from the European Union to Estonia s agricultural sector, expansion of export opportunities and popularization of organic farming. Cropland area has increased due to the land use change from grassland to cropland which results in increased N2O emissions. To avoid increased N2O emissions from Cropland Management the conversion of grasslands to croplands can be limited by preserving larger areas of permanent grasslands. On the other hand, supporting organic farming would reduce GHG emissions related to application of mineral fertilizers, old technology and other factors but at the same time due to decreased crop yield, larger land area for Cropland Management is needed. In order to limit GHG emissions from Cropland Management, crop diversification can be used. Also, it is important to analyse what are the most efficient quantities and times for application of nitrogen fertilizers. During the research of nitrogen fertilizers it is important to pay attention to balanced use of fertilizer because incorrect use of the fertilizer would result in unused nitrogen which will be released in the environment and also the yield will be lower. Some nutrient deficiency causes non-use of nitrogen by plants and nitrogen leaching to environment. Also excessive liming and on the other hand acidification of soils will reduce nutrient uptake by plants and increase nitrogen emissions. In Estonia, annual precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration, causing calcium and magnesium carbonates to leach out from the surface levels of soil by percolating water. As a result of the leaching carbonates, soil becomes deprived of calcium and magnesium. Over 22% of arable land soils in Estonia are calcium-deficient and acidified. To eliminate calcium-deficiency in field soils, quick-acting fine dusty limes are mainly applied 6. In addition to the named reasons, soil protection mechanisms are needed in Estonia to limit GHG emissions, soil erosion and to maintain and raise the content of soil organic matter. Further research and support is needed to advise farmers on environmentally friendly management. Also, to transfer knowledge and know-how to farmers, implementing of efficient advisory systems and services is needed. The potential to reduce the area of cropland and enhance the area of grassland to large extent could be a risk to Estonian food security. Nevertheless, there are co-benefits in terms of limiting and reducing GHG emissions while protecting ecological focus areas, maintaining 6 National Inventory Report

17 semi-natural habitats, protecting natural habitats, and wild fauna and flora that prevents landuse change. Potential to limit and reduce GHG emissions is also related to peatlands. In NIR 7, wetlands land use category includes peatlands and inland water bodies. The area of wetlands cover 11% of Estonia s territory. In Estonia, peat is the third most important indigenous fuel after oil shale and wood. Most GHG emissions from peatlands are related to peat extraction sites. In 2012, the total area of managed peat extractions fields was ha. Peat extraction usually proceeds on the same production area during several years. After the extraction the area is restored. Land change to wetlands and peat extraction sites has intensified since 2004, leading to growing emissions in the recent years. In order to reduce GHG emissions from peat extraction sites it is important to restore the land degraded by extraction to forest land, water body or some other kind of land. There are also numbers of exhausted and abandoned peat extraction sites from Soviet times in Estonia that are sources of GHG emissions due to the removed vegetation layer. Restoring the water regime of those abandoned peat extraction sites would allow afforestation activities and recreation of bogs. Areas degraded by drainage should be prioritised to identify the needs for and sequence of their rehabilitation and restoration. Also, further draining of natural peatlands should be avoided in order to limit GHG emissions from those areas. Some of the mire habitats in protected areas are threatened. Restoration of those areas will also result in reduction of GHG emissions. It is also important to prefer continuation of peat extraction from areas already degraded and that are difficult and expensive to restore. 7 National Inventory Report